For what it’s worth, I’ve got no problem with Airman Doors’ position vis a vis paying his money to go see the movie. Not to equate Moore with Sean Hannity, but I wouldn’t give that stupid fuck (Hannity) a nickel of my money. If you gave me his book, however, I would be happy to tear the shit out of it, logically and factually speaking. Again, not that Moore and Hannity are in any way equivalent.
I’m interested in AD’s reaction to the movie. Given that it is in the theaters, a copy cannot be loaned to him. I still like the suggestion someone else made about buying a ticket to see Shrek 2 and finding your way to Fahrenheit 911.
I’m kind of surprised at all the nit-pickers about this. First you’re all over Airman because he won’t go see the movie, then he and I work out an arrangement that compromises neither my principles nor his, and you’re all over that! I was going to see it this weekend. If I don’t go, then Moore gets no extra money, only the price of one ticket that he would have gotten anyway. Would that make y’all happy? Sheesh.
Dictionary.com - retarded, adj. (selected from the Merriam-Webster result portion, the only one that mentions offensive)
Often Offensive. Affected with mental retardation.
Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.
Well, this tells me by implication that it’s not always offensive… that’s good. I’d hate to think that the dictionaries of the world had bought into the PC era so completely that they wanted to say, with authority, which words were supposed to be offensive.
The use of the word ‘retarded’ in a slang sense as a substitute for ‘stupid’ is a long-standing tradition amongst my people (we, the few, the proud, the twenty-something) - the use of it is insensitive, I’ll grant you, to any mentally-challenged folks who may be listening. And one would never apply it to a person who was actually developmentally disabled.
In fact, I don’t find myself using it all that often anymore. We have a good variety of words that mean ‘stupid’ - but when I see this pile of flaming invective directed at me and lissener because we failed to pre-scrub our speech to make it bland and palatable to every single person in the entire universe - well, it just makes me laugh.
“It won a Humanitas award.”
“What’s that?”
“An award for shows that don’t use words like ‘retarded’.”
“That’s retarded. And queer.”
So, if the above facts are true, what’s wrong with the above “documentary”?
It may leave out important facts about MLK, but it would be very informative for people who did not know this side of MLK. I don’t see what you wrote as too misleading.
Same with Moore’s movie. If the facts are true, and if they are impotant facts that many people might not know about, what’s wrong with it? Who says every documentary has to present “the whole truth” for it to be useful or important?
For example, for people who think Bush is “a regular guy”, and people who hate Kerry because he is part of the “elite”, there is a scene in the trailer where he tells a room full of “elite”: “Others call you the elite, I call you my base”.
Surely, this is important for people who view him “a regular guy” to be able to see this side of him.
Perhaps. But the manner in which you used it here was most certainly intended to be offensive. Since this is the case, your defense is nothing but a strawman and a self-justification for your insensitivity. Sensibility for the uncontrollable medical conditions of your fellow humans has not a goddamn thing to do with “political correctness.”
Actually, it wasn’t intended to offend. But you’re welcome to jump to whatever conclusions are close at hand.
“Witch” has long been used as a slang word for an ill-tempered woman. If I were to call someone a witch, and one of my Wiccan friends said “Hey, you can’t use that word that way, it offends me!” I’d have to laugh, and tell them that while they’re welcome to be offended, no offense was meant, and I intend to continue to use the word as I see fit, as it doesn’t belong to them. Likewise with “retarded.” You’re welcome to be offended, but don’t expect that to bother me, as I had no intention of offense. Your linguistic hang-ups are not my problem.
There are a lot of things wrong with it. Number 1, the sins of a man’s past do not necessarily project his current character. Number 2, there is no reason to believe that the SCLC is lying even if King were a liar. Number 3, there is nothing stated about his school’s policies with respect to copying work, and since he got good grades it could be assumed that he did nothing against their policies. Number 4, the whole bit about plagiarism is a red herring anyway (as are the communist ties) because the great things Martin Luther King, Jr did far outweigh such piddly shit. Number 5, the sources could in fact have been wrong, since all I checked was that I quoted them correctly. And on and on. It is a grossly misleading piece about one of America’s greatest 20th century leaders.
So . . . the soldiers who (in a film you haven’t seen) gave an honest answer to a direct question were “tricked” because–you apparently assume–if they’d known their interviewer was a liberal (or whatever; your unlinked “cite” is oddly truncated), they’d have had a chance to, what, make something up?
So *tricked * = not given adequate opportunity to lie.
Since Fahrenheit 9/11does touch on John Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and the shredding of our civil liberties for a fair portion of the film (look out for those Fresno peaceniks!), does that mean you’ll end up buy a matinee ticket?
I’m glad you found that. It helps make my point. The parody post insinuated nothing but the fraud and hypocrite part. What is there in F9/11, if you have seen it, that acknowledges Bush’s leadership (which more than 80% of Americans recognized) in the period shortly after 9/11? Did the film indicate, for example, that his reaction in front of the school children was appropriate so that they did not become alarmed and hysterical? Or did it represent the moment solely as Bush being indecisive and his staff not knowing what to do?
[roadmap]
Pssst…he was suggesting, since the movie is not 100% about the things you mentioned but does touch on them in a significant degree, you could buy a ticket that costs less than full price.
[/roadmap]
[signpost]
And I was suggesting that I’m not interested in something half-assed. Haven’t you seen Cuckoo’s Nest? A broken cigarette is not two nickels.
[/signpost]